Federal Judge Blocks Deportation of Venezuelans Under Historic Law
A legal decision was made on Thursday where a federal judge in Texas prohibited the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelans using an 18th-century statute. The ruling declared that President Donald Trump’s application of the law was “unlawful”.
Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. of the U.S. District Court stated that the Alien Enemies Act, a law over two centuries old, was not applicable to individuals that the administration categorized as gang members invading the U.S. While he acknowledged the government’s authority to deport individuals residing illegally through other legal avenues, he specified that this particular law should not be utilized for such purposes.
Quoting Judge Rodriguez, “Neither the Court nor the parties question that the Executive Branch can direct the detention and removal of aliens who engage in criminal activity in the United States.” However, he pointed out that “the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms.”
In a March proclamation, President Trump claimed that the Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, was infiltrating the U.S., and asserted special powers to deport identified gang members without standard judicial processes.
Judge Rodriguez concluded, “The Court concludes that the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and, as a result, is unlawful.”
Vice President JD Vance, during a Fox News interview, indicated that the administration plans to “aggressively appeal” the decision, challenging limits on the president’s deportation powers. “The judge doesn’t make that determination, whether the Alien Enemies Act can be deployed,” Vance expressed. He asserted, “I think the president of the United States is the one who determines whether this country is being invaded.”
Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair, Rep. Adriano Espaillat, D-N.Y., shared in a statement that the court’s decision affirmed that “the Trump administration illegally used the Alien Enemies Act to deport people without due process.”
The Alien Enemies Act’s historical applications include only three instances, with the most recent during World War II involving the internment of Japanese-Americans. The administration’s proclamation led to litigation efforts to deport supposed gang members to a known prison in El Salvador.
Rodriguez’s injunction is notable as it is the first permanent ban on using the AEA for these purposes, stressing that the law is being misapplied. ACLU lawyer Lee Gelernt, who argued the case, reacted by saying, “Congress never meant for this law to be used in this manner.”
The judge acknowledged that the law had been invoked during the two World Wars and the War of 1812. The administration claimed Tren de Aragua’s actions were directed by Venezuela, but Rodriguez found no evidence of an invasion or “predatory incursion” as required by the statute.
Rodriguez noted, “The Proclamation makes no reference to and in no manner suggests that a threat exists of an organized, armed group of individuals entering the United States at the direction of Venezuela to conquer the country or assume control over a portion of the nation.” Thus, the language did not fit the legal definition of “invasion” under the AEA.
Should the administration appeal, the case would proceed to the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, recognized for its conservative stance. The court has previously opposed immigration policy overreach by both Obama and Biden administrations.
The administration could also escalate the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court, possibly filing an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal. The Supreme Court has previously addressed deportations under the AEA, requiring a “reasonable time” for migrants accused of gang affiliations to challenge their removals, although the exact duration was not defined.
An appeal to the Supreme Court from the 5th Circuit could prompt a request for the justices to expedite a definitive ruling, potentially delaying any decision for several months.
This Texas case represents just one element of extensive litigation incited by Trump’s proclamation. Initially, the ACLU filed a lawsuit in Washington, D.C., to halt deportations. U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg temporarily stopped removals and ordered the return of planes with detainees bound for El Salvador, an order reportedly ignored. Subsequent interventions by the Supreme Court included halting deportations from North Texas in response to another potential deportation effort.
